I. Executive summary

The meeting was convened to consider how to assess various
claims made for open-source software and, if appropriate, to
identify steps to move OSS activity into the mainstream of
digital library development in a manner that might appeal to all
sectors of the library community.

The meeting focused almost exclusively on the assessment
agenda and accomplished the following:

Seven testable hypotheses about open source software and its
impact on libraries that might focus some review and
assessment

Development of a review, assessment, and publication agenda
designed to test those hypotheses and to inform decisions about
open source that need to be taken by a range of key stakeholders
in the library and related communities

Specification of a functional requirement for a "library of
open source software"

Initial contemplation of a development agenda for those
interested in open source software for libraries

Identification of immediate next steps to accomplish these
aims

The report on the meeting is set out under these five
heads.

II. Hypotheses

The meeting identified seven testable hypotheses about Open
Source Software (hereafter OSS). The first three of these
hypotheses (1-3 below) reflect claims made for the economical and
functional importance of OSS for libraries and stem directly from
the values that OSS developers bring to their work. A further
four hypotheses (4-7 below) attempt to explain why OSS
development remains in the hands of a few activist developers and
is not more a part of the library's mainstream.

OSS is an economical alternative to libraries' reliance upon
commercially supplied software. That is, despite the real costs
involved in the development, maintenance, and use of OSS software
but these are lower than those associated with library reliance
upon commercial software. Accordingly, OSS economical is not free
opens an economical alternative to reliance upon commercial
software

OSS is essential if libraries are to develop software and
systems that meet their patrons' needs. With OSS the IT
infrastructure that is essential to library operations and
services can be:

open (that is, built according to open standards and as such
potentially inter operable with other essential software and
systems);

ubiquitously available to libraries;

capable of being tailored to suit the needs and circumstances
of individual libraries

documented (and documentation must be available); and

errors can more effectively be identified and corrected
("many eyeballs make bugs shallow")

OSS ensures that library systems and online services will be
more functional for libraries and their patrons and as such be
good for library patrons. This hypothesis is posited because,
through OSS developments, libraries:

are reinserted into the research and development process that
results in systems and software;

share a stake in software development and as such have
greater influence over (and as a result take a greater interest
in specification of) the functional and performance requirements
associated with particular software tools and systems

motivate and empower systems librarians and related technical
staff by encouraging creativity and positioning them to make a
difference; and

are able more easily to collaborate with other information
science communities involved in common research and development
area

OSS can lack formal support making it difficult for libraries
without significant capacity in their systems department to
participate in OSS development or to use OSS.

OSS needs to develop a participatory organizational model
that allows many to contribute perhaps in different ways to OSS
development.

OSS is not always easy to use. It is therefore largely
inaccessible to the many libraries and library system departments
that require plug-and-play software that is well documented and
supported and can be easily installed (and uninstalled).

OSS initiatives do not always do enough to get non-systems
librarians and library patrons involved in design and testing of
OSS. As such, they are seen as being something that exclusively
offers benefits to and holds interest for library systems staff
and not for the wider library community.

III. Research and publication agenda

The group recommended the development of two publications that
would test hypotheses developed above and inform decisions about
OSS as need to be taken by members of key communities. The aims,
objectives, contents, and target audiences of these publications
are set out below.

Publication 1. OSS. A critical review and assessment

Aim: To raise awareness about the potential value of
OSS and to encourage informed decision making about potential
investments in its development and use.

Contents of publication: This publication would

introduce and define OSS;

provide a synoptic and annotated inventory (illustrative,
perhaps, more than comprehensive) of OSS activity for libraries
in the US and abroad, assessing the extent and nature of tat
activity;

include case studies of OSS initiatives (involving different
kinds of software and different kinds of libraries) written
wherever possible to a common outline that ensures the studies'
comparability and their use in assessing costs, benefits,
functionality, sustainability, viability of OSS;

include a critical assessment (based on the inventory, the
case studies, and on additional research) of some of the
hypotheses stated above about the economic viability and
functionality of OSS as an alternative to commercially produced
software;

offer some of the cost-benefit considerations that libraries
need to consider when thinking about investing in OSS
development/use.

Where appropriate, the study might also review some of the
barriers to library's more effective exploitation of OSS and how
those barriers might be reduced.

Target audience: The report should be written
principally for the following audiences giving preference to
library directors and to decision makers and program officers at
both federal and philanthropic agencies that invest in libraries,
digital libraries, and mechanisms that support scholarly
communications

library directors (including directors from libraries with
both large and highly constrained IT budgets),

decision makers and program officers at both federal and
philanthropic agencies that invest in libraries, digital library,
mechanisms that support scholarly communications, etc

CIOs (e.g. in large public libraries, but also in
institutions such as universities which host libraries and where
CIOs may manage appropriate R&D budgets and staff)

officers and lead participants in library consortia
(particularly where those consortia are responsible for
operational systems)

reference and other librarians who are affected by but not
party too the strategic, tactical, and operational decisions made
in library systems departments

library system vendors

a general professional audience and readership such as that
targeted by library professional associations

Possible development process: The background,
inventory, and assessment could be commissioned from a single
author, while case studies could be commissioned from a variety
of authors as appropriate. In order to ensure the study was
written for and responsive to the interests and needs of its
target audience, it might be developed in consultation with an
advisory or editorial board.

Publication venue: The study should be published by a
creditable journal or organization such as Library Trends,
CLIR/DLF, etc.

Publication 2. OSS. An introduction for systems
librarians

Aim: To support informed decision making about OSS by
library systems and other technical staff who are involved in the
day-to-day development or management of operational IT services
in or for libraries.

Content of publication: The report should:

Include an introduction defining open source, offering a
synoptic assessment of OSS activity to date for libraries in the
US a and indicating why systems librarians should take an
interest in OSS developments

Review the issues that need to be considered within a library
systems department that is thinking about implementing OSS tools
or getting involved in OSS development (including technical,
funding, human resource, managerial issues)

Review of good practice in development, documentation, and
licensing OSS and with regard to participation in OSS development
processes

Review of next steps for departments wishing to get more
involved with OSS

Target audience: The report should be written
principally for:

programmers/developers, other information scientists and
software and system developers

library system vendors

professional schools and other agencies from which systems
librarians are recruited

Production process: to be resolved

Publication venue: a creditable publisher of similar
texts

IV. An OSS Library or Portal

The group identified the potential value of an OSS library or
portal service

to assist in the identification and review of OSS for
libraries and support in informed decision-making as pertaining
to its application and use and

to lower some of the barriers that currently impede the more
effective development and exploitation of OSS for libraries.

As a library, the service might maintain an organized catalog
of selected and consistently documented persistent and accessible
OSS for libraries. In addition, it could:

maintain a list (formally or otherwise) of OSS for library
development projects. In this respect it would be a repository of
projects as well as of products;

support an open review and feedback mechanism whereby library
users could review, provide feedback about, develop case studies
arising from their use of catalogued OSS;

provide a mapping between software systems and tools
including in that mapping both open source and commercial systems
and tools. With such a mapping, a user would be able to identify
and then assess the various tools capable to supplying a
particular function or functions;

act as a broker able to match institution's specific human
resource needs (e.g. for people able to supply or install
particular tools) with the qualified people able to meet them and
to marry programmers to development projects;

provide access to general information (e.g. about the costs
and benefits involved in using OSS, about criteria that may be
used to assess OSS) and pointers to related information
resources; and

act as a clearinghouse for information about OSS that may
assist in its identification, location, assessment, access;
and

lower the barriers for libraries in identifying, assessing
and possible using/developing OSS

In addition, the library or portal's very existence could
supply a number of vital functions almost as byproducts. Use of
the library or portal would:

help to document trends in library software development,
notably in the kinds of software tools and systems
libraries;

incubate and facilitate the development of selected OSS
projects;

encourage informed decision-making about OSS licensing;

inform (identify need for further) OSS development work;

support attempts to articulate system and service functions
required by libraries;

support standards development work as appropriate to
integration of library software and systems (whether of OSS or
commercial origins)

Remaining questions as yet to be resolved

What selection criteria should be employed by such a library
or portal (software would have to be accessible, persistent,
applicable to use in libraries, etc)?

What level of support would a portal supply to whom and for
what software tools?

What documentation should be associated with catalogued OSS -
what subset of documentation (if any) should be required; what
should remain optional. Here, it was noted that the exemplar of a
good free software listing site (one that could be used by those
interested in OSS for libraries). The freshmeat model basically
supplies project name, project description, version history
(announcement text, dates), names of one or two authors, link to
project page, link to download page, link to change-log, link to
binary/source download, link to alternate/mirror page,
descriptive categorization, screenshot. In a follow-up
communication, a participant noted the importance to OSS
assessment of consistent documentation, suggesting that
consistent documentation may preferably fit within a known
documentation format and may include

problem statement

project background

narrative history

changelog

license

credits

protocol/spec/standard references

install how-to

requirements/dependencies

platform variations

administration guide

operating tasks

user guide or help subsystem

subsystem documentation (e.g. data model/dictionary,
scripting guide)

to-do list (unfinished tasks)

how to help list (we need help doing X, Y, Z)

wishlist (blue-sky would be nice if la dee da...)

mailing list archives

What template, if any, should be recommended for reviews and
feedback in order, for example, to encourage comparability

V. OSS research and development agenda

Recognizing the likelihood that much OSS would support
specific library functions, the group focused on the requirements
for integrating these tools in any library environment. Although
no concrete research agenda emerged, emphasis was given to the
following:

standards required to integrate software tools in a library
systems environment with particular focus on APIs

common understanding of digital library systems architecture
and the formal systems relationship between component modules of
that architecture

identification of and possible concentration on the system
functions and tools that libraries require but that are least
likely to be supplied (or supplied well or effectively)
commercially

conduct a piece of survey research into licensing terms used
with OSS with a view to developing a model license agreement (the
work of Liblicense might be used as a model)

VI. Next steps

Discuss the meeting and its outcomes with stakeholders who
may have an interest in and might wish to participate in some way
in the review, assessment, and publications, activities
contemplated above in section 2. Candidates for consultation
include representatives from Educause, CNI, ARL, NLM, IMLS, NSF,
Mellon, the Urban Library Council, the Oberlin Group, ICOLC.

Identify, in part through that discussion, support for and
authors of relevant component parts of those activities

Work on the repository might be conducted along a parallel
track. Alternatively, it might be formed by the review,
assessment, and publications effort that could in effect act to
develop a feasibility study for such a repository

Participants also agreed to undertake specific actions, for
example to initiate development of a prototype portal, develop
content appropriate to the research and publication agenda,
explore outreach and awareness-raising opportunities e.g. at the
ALA conference in summer 2002